Advanced Internet Technologies, Inc.v.Google, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose DivisionApr 5, 2006
Case No. C 05 02579 RMW Consolidated with, Case No. C 05 02885 RMW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2006)

Case No. C 05 02579 RMW Consolidated with, Case No. C 05 02885 RMW.

April 5, 2006

RICHARD L. KELLNER, FRANK E. MARCHETTI, KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP, Los Angeles, California, DARREN T. KAPLAN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), GREGORY E. KELLER (To be admitted Pro Hac Vice), CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, SHAWN KHORRAMI, SBN, LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN KHORRAMI Van Nuys, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff.


ORDER


RONALD WHYTE, District Judge

On January 13, 2006, the Court heard plaintiff Click Defense, Inc's ("Click Defense's") Motion for leave to (1) withdraw as representative plaintiff of the putative class; (2) discontinue its individual claims against defendant Google, Inc. ("Google") without prejudice; (3) substitute Advanced Internet Technologies, Inc. ("AIT") for Click Defense as representative plaintiff of the putative class; and (4) amend the caption accordingly. Having considered the parties' arguments and submissions, the Court orders as follows:

1. Click Defense's motion is GRANTED. AIT shall be substituted for Click Defense as the named plaintiff and putative class representative. The caption shall be amended accordingly.

2. Click Defense shall produce documents in response to one set of requests for production served by Google, and produce a witness or witnesses for one seven-hour deposition on topics noticed by Google. Google's requests for production and deposition notice shall be narrowly tailored. This Court will retain jurisdiction to resolve any disputes relating to this discovery.

3. After Click Defense produces the documents and testifies at deposition as set forth in the preceding paragraph, if Google desires any additional discovery from Click Defense, it must serve a subpoena under Fed.R.Civ.P. 45. This Court expresses no opinion on the propriety of any such additional discovery.

4. The Court declines to order at this time that plaintiffs' counsel must make a showing of good cause if they seek to change class representatives again. The Court will decide any such motion, including what showing plaintiffs' counsel must make, if and when such a motion is presented.

IT IS SO ORDERED.